United States v. Trinidad-Acosta, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Trinidad-Acosta, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/48

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 13- 183013- 2056

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

MANUEL TRI NI DAD- ACOSTA,ED COGSWELL,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. J ohn A. Woodcock, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Dyk, * and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d W. Ruof f , wi t h whomHoward & Ruof f , PLLC, was on br i ef ,f or appel l ant Tr i ni dad- Acost a.

Hunt er J . Tzovar r as f or appel l ant Cogswel l .Set h R. Af r ame, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whom

J ohn P. Kacavas, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

December 5, 2014

* Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/48

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Def endant s- Appel l ant s Manuel

Tr i ni dad- Acost a ( "Tr i ni dad") and Ed Cogswel l ( "Cogswel l " ) wer e

convi ct ed f or t hei r i nvol vement i n a conspi r acy t o di st r i but e

cocai ne base ( or " cr ack cocai ne" ) . They appeal t hei r convi ct i ons

and sent ences, ci t i ng a number of al l eged t r i al and sent enci ng

er r or s. We have r evi ewed t hei r cl ai ms car ef ul l y and do not f i nd

mer i t i n any of t hem. Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m.

I. Facts1

Somet i me around September 2010, t wo New Yor k r esi dent s,

i n coor di nat i on wi t h a l ocal dr ug deal er , set up a busi ness f or

di st r i but i ng cr ack cocai ne i n Bangor , Mai ne. The conspi r acy' s

l eader , Dawl i n Cabr er a ( "Cabr er a" ) , r emai ned i n New Yor k, f r om

wher e conspi r acy member s shi pped packages of cr ack cocai ne t o Mai ne

by bus. At i t s peak, t he conspi r acy sol d cl ose t o 300 gr ams of

crack cocai ne each mont h. I ni t i al l y, t he dr ugs wer e di st r i but ed

f r om a number of r esi dences i n Bangor , al t hough by December 2010

t he sal e and st or age of t he cr ack cocai ne ar r i vi ng f r om New Yor k

was cent r al i zed i n a si ngl e l ocat i on: 100B Ohi o St r eet .

The conspi r acy l eader s r ecr ui t ed a number of i ndi vi dual s

t o par t i ci pat e i n i t s l ocal Bangor oper at i ons. Among t hose

r ecr ui t ed was Tr i ni dad - - known t o conspi r acy member s as "Fi sh" or

"Pej e. " Tr i ni dad l i ved at t he 100B Ohi o St r eet apar t ment f or a

1 We br i ef l y summar i ze t he r el evant f act s, r eser vi ng f or ouranal ysi s a mor e det ai l ed di scussi on of t he f act s r el evant t o eachi ssue pr esent ed on appeal .

-2-


3/48

por t i on of t he conspi r acy' s dur at i on, par t i ci pat i ng i n t he st or age

and sal e of cr ack cocai ne at t he r esi dence.

A bank account was opened f or Cabr era at t he l ocal Bank

of Amer i ca br anch usi ng an al i as. Tr i ni dad woul d deposi t i nt o t hat

account cash pr oceeds f r omt he sal e of cr ack cocai ne; Cabr er a woul d

t hen wi t hdr aw t hi s money f r om New Yor k Ci t y br anches of t he bank.

Co- def endant Cogswel l , a dai l y cr ack cocai ne user ,

par t i ci pated i n t he conspi r acy as a sal esman. He woul d r egul ar l y

pur chase bundl es of cr ack cocai ne f r om t he New Yor k i mport er s and

r esel l t he dr ug t o l ocal cust omer s i n and around Bangor . Cogswel l

al so l i ved f or some t i me at t he 100B Ohi o St r eet apar t ment , and he

t oo made some cash deposi t s i nto Cabr era' s bank account .

J enni f er Hol mes ( "Hol mes" ) r egul ar l y pur chased cr ack

cocai ne at t he Ohi o St r eet addr ess f r omei t her Tr i ni dad, Cogswel l ,

or anot her member of t he conspi r acy. Hol mes purchased f i r ear ms f or

Tr i ni dad and f or some ot her members of t he conspi r acy, f or whi ch

she was compensat ed wi t h cr ack cocai ne.

By t he summer of 2011, l aw enf or cement had det ect ed t he

dr ug di st r i but i on oper at i on and had devel oped conf i dent i al

i nf ormant s. I n November 2011, l aw enf orcement r ai ded t he Ohi o

St r eet apar t ment . Af t er some ar r est s were made, most of t he co-

conspi r at or s provi ded i nf or mat i on and agr eed to cooper at e; Tr i ni dad

and Cogswel l di d not .

-3-


4/48

A gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed Tr i ni dad and Cogswel l on one count

of conspi r acy t o possess wi t h t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e t went y- ei ght

gr ams or more of cr ack cocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C.

841( b) ( 1) ( B) and 846. Tr i ni dad was al so i ndi ct ed on one count

of possessi ng a f i r ear mi n f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cri me,

i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 924( c) .

Bot h def endant s wer e t r i ed t oget her . The t r i al evi dence

consi st ed of t est i mony f r om mul t i pl e cooper at i ng coconspi r at or s

who operat ed out of t he 100B Ohi o St r eet apar t ment , each of whom

i dent i f i ed Tr i ni dad and Cogswel l as member s of t he conspi r acy,

except f or Cabr er a, who i dent i f i ed Cogswel l as a dr ug user and

cust omer of t he conspi r acy. Ther e was al so evi dence t hat Tr i ni dad

had si gned t he l ease f or t he Ohi o St r eet apart ment , pai d t he

mont hl y r ent i n cash, and was r esponsi bl e f or moni t or i ng dr ugs

st ored i n t he apart ment .

I n addi t i on, t he gover nment pr esent ed evi dence t hat both

def endant s had deposi t ed dr ug pr oceeds i nt o Cabr era' s bank account

and that t hey had bot h made mul t i pl e crack cocai ne del i ver i es.

Fi nal l y, t her e was t est i mony f r omHol mes, who, f ol l owi ng a r equest

f r om Cogswel l , had pur chased a gun f or Tr i ni dad. Thi s gun was

r ecover ed by t he pol i ce f r om an apart ment i n whi ch Tr i ni dad was

st ayi ng.

Af t er a f i ve- day t r i al , bot h def endant s wer e f ound gui l t y

as char ged. At sent enci ng, Tr i ni dad was f ound r esponsi bl e f or 4. 9

-4-


5/48

ki l ogr ams of cr ack cocai ne, t r i gger i ng a base of f ense l evel of

t hi r t y- si x. A t wo- l evel enhancement was appl i ed under U. S.

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes Manual ( "U. S. S. G. " ) 2D1. 1( b) ( 12) f or

mai nt ai ni ng a pr emi ses f or t he pur pose of di st r i but i ng a cont r ol l ed

subst ance ( known as t he "cr ack house enhancement " ) , i ncr easi ng t he

of f ense l evel t o t hi r t y- ei ght . Si nce Tr i ni dad had a cri mi nal

hi st or y cat egor y of I , t he appl i cabl e advi sor y gui del i nes

sent enci ng r ange ( "GSR") was 235- 293 mont hs of i mpr i sonment f or t he

conspi r acy count and 60 mont hs f or t he f i r ear m count , f or a tot al

of 295- 353 mont hs. The government r equest ed t hat Tr i ni dad be

sent enced t o 295 mont hs, whi l e Tr i ni dad asked f or a 180- mont h

sent ence. Tr i ni dad was ul t i matel y sent enced t o 240 mont hs ( 180

mont hs on Count One and t he st at ut or i l y r equi r ed consecut i ve 60

mont hs on Count Two) - - al most f i ve years bel ow t he l ow end of t he

GSR.

For hi s par t , Cogswel l was f ound r esponsi bl e f or 841

gr ams of crack cocai ne, yi el di ng a base of f ense l evel of t hi r t y-

f our . The di st r i ct cour t added a t wo- l evel obst r ucti on- of - j ust i ce

enhancement f or wr i t i ng a t hr eat eni ng l et t er t o a t est i f yi ng

wi t ness af t er t r i al , and a t wo- l evel i ncrease f or possessi on of a

f i r ear m, el evat i ng t he of f ense l evel t o t hi r t y- ei ght . He had a

cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I I , whi ch r esul t ed i n a GSR of 262- 327

mont hs. Cogswel l was sentenced t o 180 mont hs of i mpr i sonment - -

al most seven years bel ow t he l ow end of t he GSR.

-5-


6/48

II. Discussion of Trinidad's Claims

A. Denial of Motion for a Mistrial

Tr i ni dad ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng

hi s mot i on f or a mi st r i al . We di sagr ee.

1. Background

On J anuar y 30, 2013, Hol mes t est i f i ed agai nst t he

def endant s, as part of her cooper at i on agr eement wi t h t he

gover nment . 2 Dur i ng di r ect exami nat i on, Hol mes i dent i f i ed

Tr i ni dad, who i s a dark- ski nned Domi ni can, as wel l as Cogswel l , who

i s Caucasi an, as peopl e i nvol ved i n t he conspi r acy.

When t he pr osecut or asked Hol mes i f Tr i ni dad was i n t he

cour t r oom, Hol mes answered i n t he af f i r mat i ve. When asked t o

descr i be an ar t i cl e of cl ot hi ng t hat he was wear i ng, Hol mes

i ndi cated t hat she coul d not do so, because she coul d not see hi m.

The prosecut or t hen asked Hol mes t o st and up so t hat she coul d see

what he was wear i ng f r om t he wai st up. When she st ood up, Hol mes

i mmedi at el y i dent i f i ed t he cl ot hi ng t hat Tr i ni dad was wear i ng.

Hol mes had mor e di f f i cul t y i dent i f yi ng Cogswel l .

I ni t i al l y, Hol mes sai d t hat she coul d not det er mi ne whet her

Cogswel l was i n t he cour t r oom, because she was nearsi ght ed and

needed gl asses, whi ch she di d not have. Hol mes t hen wal ked of f t he

2 Hol mes was charged wi t h t hr ee count s of provi di ng f al sei nf or mat i on r egar di ng her pur chases of f i r ear ms f or Tr i ni dad andot her member s of t he conspi r acy. Hol mes had pl eaded gui l t y t ot hese charges and was awai t i ng sent enci ng.

-6-


7/48

wi t ness st and and got cl oser t o t he peopl e i n the cour t r oom, but

st i l l coul d not i dent i f y Cogswel l . Subsequent l y, t he pr osecut or ,

who was al so nearsi ght ed, of f er ed Hol mes hi s gl asses. Upon put t i ng

on t he pr osecut or ' s gl asses, Hol mes t est i f i ed t hat she coul d see

ver y cl ear l y, and i dent i f i ed Cogswel l .

On cross- exami nat i on, Tr i ni dad' s at t or ney t r i ed t o at t ack

Hol mes' s cr edi bi l i t y - - r egar di ng her i dent i f i cat i on of Tr i ni dad - -

by suggest i ng t hat Hol mes i dent i f i ed Tr i ni dad mor e easi l y t han

Cogswel l because Tr i ni dad was t he onl y dark- ski nned per son i n t he

cour t r oom. Hol mes, however , r esponded t hat she was abl e t o

i dent i f y Tr i ni dad mor e easi l y because " [ she] wal k[ s] past hi mever y

day. [ She i s] i n j ai l wi t h hi m. " 3

3 The exact exchange was as f ol l ows:Q: When you came i n and sat down, you di dn' t have your gl asseswi t h you, cor r ect ?A. No, I don' t own any gl asses.

. . .Q: And I t ake i t f r om your t est i mony you' r e near si ght ed?A: Yeah.. . .Q: And when you f i r st came i n, wi t hi n a f ai r l y shor t per i od oft i me, [ t he pr osecut or ] asked you t o i dent i f y t he per son youknew as Fi sh, cor r ect ?A: Yes.. . .Q: And you knew, based on your cocai ne use, t hat al most al l oft he peopl e t hat t he gover nment was i nt er est ed i n wer e bl ack,wer en' t t hey?

A: Hm, no.. . .Q: So who was i n charge of t he group?A: I t hi nk D was.Q: And i n addi t i on t o D, t her e wer e some other dark- ski nnedi ndi vi dual s, wer en' t t her e?A: Yes.

-7-


8/48

Tr i ni dad t hen moved f or a mi st r i al on account of Hol mes' s

st at ement t hat she wal ked past Tr i ni dad ever y day i n j ai l . Whi l e

he r ecogni zed that Hol mes' s s t at ement was made "spontaneousl y" and

"wi t hout any assi st ance f r omt he gover nment , " Tr i ni dad ar gued t hat

i t was t he f i r st t i me t hat anyone had r ef er r ed t o hi m bei ng i n

cust ody and t hat i t war r ant ed a mi st r i al because of t he pr ej udi ci al

ef f ect of havi ng t he j ur y know t hat he was i n cust ody.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed Tr i ni dad' s r equest f or a

mi st r i al . I t not ed t hat Tr i ni dad' s at t or ney was at t acki ng Hol mes' s

cr edi bi l i t y and t hat her t est i mony was a di r ect and nat ur al

r esponse to def ense counsel ' s suggest i on t hat she was abl e t o

i dent i f y Tr i ni dad mor e easi l y t han Cogswel l because of Tr i ni dad' s

ski n col or . The t r i al cour t r easoned t hat Tr i ni dad coul d not , by

hi s own quest i oni ng, el i ci t a response t hat he di d not l i ke and

t hen t ur n ar ound and move f or a mi st r i al based on t he response.

The gover nment suggest ed t hat t he t r i al cour t consi der a

l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on on Hol mes' s answer . I n r esponse, t he cour t

not ed t hat gi vi ng a l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on coul d br i ng mor e at t ent i on

Q: We can even cal l t hem, i n common par l ance, bl ack f ol k,can' t we?A: They' r e Domi ni can.Q: Okay. But t hey ar e bl ack.

A: Yes.Q: They' r e not whi t e Domi ni cans.A: No.Q: But you wer e - - despi t e your i nabi l i t y t o see Mr . Cogswel lf r om r oughl y t he same di st ance, you coul d i nst ant l y i dent i f ymy cl i ent .A. I wal k past hi m ever y day. I ' m i n j ai l wi t h hi m.

-8-


9/48

t o t he test i mony, whi ch coul d have escaped the j ur y, and t ol d

Tr i ni dad t hat i t was compl et el y up t o hi m t o deci de whet her he

want ed a l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on gi ven t o t he j ur y. Tr i ni dad deci ded

not t o r equest a l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on.

2. Applicable Law and Analysis

"Decl ar i ng a mi st r i al i s a l ast r esor t , onl y t o be

i mpl ement ed i f t he t ai nt i s i ner adi cabl e, t hat i s, onl y i f t he

t r i al j udge bel i eves t hat t he j ur y' s exposur e t o t he evi dence i s

l i kel y t o pr ove beyond r eal i st i c hope of r epai r . " Uni t ed St at es v.

D az, 494 F. 3d 221, 227 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Sepl veda, 15 F. 3d 1161, 1184 ( 1st . Ci r . 1993) ) . When r evi ewi ng

t he deni al of a r equest f or a mi st r i al , "we consi der t he t ot al i t y

of t he ci r cumst ances t o determi ne whether t he def endant has

demonst r ated t he ki nd of cl ear pr ej udi ce t hat woul d r ender t he

cour t ' s deni al of hi s mot i on f or a mi st r i al a mani f est abuse of

di scr et i on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Dunbar , 553 F. 3d 48, 58 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Freeman, 208 F. 3d 332, 339 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ) . " I n conduct i ng t hi s

i nqui r y, we ar e mi ndf ul t hat t he t r i al cour t has a super i or poi nt

of vant age, and t hat i t i s onl y r ar el y - - and i n ext r emel y

compel l i ng ci r cumst ances - - t hat an appel l at e panel , i nf or med by a

col d r ecor d, wi l l vent ur e t o r ever se a t r i al j udge' s on- t he- spot

deci si on. " Freeman, 208 F. 3d at 339 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Pi er r o, 32 F. 3d 611, 617 ( 1st

-9-


10/48

Ci r . 1994) ( "Bat t l es over t he need f or a mi st r i al most of t en wi l l

be won or l ost i n t he di st r i ct cour t . " ) . We exami ne " t he cont ext

of t he i mpr oper r emar k, whet her i t was del i ber at e or acci dent al ,

t he l i kel y ef f ect of t he cur at i ve i nst r uct i on, and t he st r engt h of

t he evi dence agai nst t he appel l ant s. " Uni t ed St at es v. Cr est a, 825

F. 2d 538, 549- 50 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) . Def er ence t o t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s rul i ng i s par t i cul ar l y appr opr i at e wher e, as her e, t he

r equest f or mi st r i al i s based on a cl ai m t hat "some spont aneous

devel opment at t r i al may have i nf l uenced t he j ur y i n an i mpr oper

manner . " D az, 494 F. 3d at 226.

Tr i ni dad cl ai ms t hat Hol mes' s st at ement - - t hat she had

seen hi m i n j ai l ever y day - - i nt er f er ed wi t h hi s const i t ut i onal

r i ght t o a pr esumpt i on of i nnocence and shoul d be consi der ed

"hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al . " He of f er s t hr ee al l eged r easons: ( 1) evi dence

t hat Tr i ni dad was i n j ai l wi t h Hol mes cr eat ed t he chance t hat t he

j ur y woul d i nf er gui l t by associ at i on; ( 2) t he j ury was f r ee t o

i nf er t hat Tr i ni dad' s i ncar cer at i on was t he r esul t of t he j udi ci al

det er mi nat i on of Tr i ni dad' s danger ousness or gui l t ; and ( 3) i f t he

j ury di d not t hi nk t hat Tr i ni dad was detai ned on t he pendi ng

char ges, t hey wer e f r ee to specul at e t hat he was i n f act

i ncar cer at ed on ot her char ges. Tr i ni dad cont ends t hat t he t r i al

cour t had no opt i on but t o or der a mi st r i al .

Tr i ni dad r el i es on Est el l e v. Wi l l i ams, 425 U. S. 501,

503- 05 ( 1976) , t o suppor t hi s pr oposi t i on t hat a mi st r i al was

-10-


11/48

war r ant ed. I n Est el l e, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat f or ci ng a

def endant t o wear pr i son gar b t hr oughout hi s t r i al under mi nes t he

def endant ' s pr esumpt i on of i nnocence because such cl othi ng i s a

const ant r emi nder of t he def endant ' s condi t i on as a pr et r i al

det ai nee. I d. at 504. Tr i ni dad al l eges t hat Hol mes' s br i ef

r ef er ence t o hi s i ncar cer at i on had t he same ef f ect as t he pr i soner

cl ot hi ng at i ssue i n Est el l e. We di sagr ee.

The possi bl e ef f ect on t he j ury of Hol mes' s f l eet i ng

comment r egar di ng Tr i ni dad' s pr e- t r i al i ncar cer at i on st at us i s

mar kedl y di f f er ent f r omt hat of a def endant wear i ng pr i son cl ot hi ng

t hr oughout hi s ent i r e t r i al . The Supr eme Cour t hel d i n Est el l e

t hat t he cl ot hi ng woul d be a "const ant r emi nder " of t he def endant ' s

condi t i on as a pr et r i al det ai nee. 425 U. S. at 504 ( emphasi s

added) . Her e, on t he cont r ar y, we ar e deal i ng wi t h a si ngl e,

i sol ated st atement t hat was made and put t o rest , and that di d not

pr ovi de any det ai l s about Tr i ni dad' s i ncar cer at i on. A number of

cases - - bot h f r om t hi s and ot her ci r cui t s - - suppor t t hi s cruci al

di st i nct i on and counsel t hat we r ej ect Tr i ni dad' s ar gument . See,

e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. De J ess Mat eo, 373 F. 3d 70, 73 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) ( hol di ng t hat t her e was no abuse of di scr et i on i n denyi ng

mi st r i al based on a comment t hat t he def endant was i n pr i son where

t he comment "provi ded t he j ur y wi t h l i t t l e det ai l ") ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Deandr ade, 600 F. 3d 115, 118 ( 2d Ci r . 2010)

( "[ T] he r ul e t hat emer ges i s t hat br i ef and f l eet i ng r ef er ences [ t o

-11-


12/48

t he def endant ' s i ncar cer at i on] ar e gener al l y al l owed, but ext ended

comment i s i mper mi ssi bl e. " ) . Mor eover , Tr i ni dad' s pr et r i al

i ncarcer at i on was not ment i oned by any other wi t ness. Nor was i t

r ef er enced by t he gover nment dur i ng t r i al .

The cont ext i n whi ch Hol mes made t he comment at i ssue

al so counsel s agai nst gr ant i ng a mi st r i al . Hol mes made t he comment

i n r esponse t o t he suggest i on, by Tr i ni dad' s at t or ney, t hat her

i dent i f i cat i on of Tr i ni dad was mot i vat ed by Tr i ni dad' s ski n col or .

Faced wi t h an at t ack on her cr edi bi l i t y, Hol mes f el t compel l ed t o

expl ai n that she coul d i dent i f y Tr i ni dad mor e easi l y t han Cogswel l

because she wal ked past hi m ever y day whi l e she was i n j ai l wi t h

hi m. I t i s wel l - est abl i shed t hat when, as her e, def ense counsel

el i ci t s a r esponse f r om a wi t ness, 4 t he def ense cannot t hen

"compl ai n of t he al l eged er r or . " Cr est a, 825 F. 2d at 552. Si nce

t he t hr ust of t he cr oss- exami nat i on was an ef f or t t o under mi ne t he

basi s f or Hol mes' s i dent i f i cat i on, we hol d t hat Tr i ni dad di d not

suf f er cl ear pr ej udi ce wher e Hol mes mer el y pr ovi ded t he basi s f or

her ease i n maki ng t he i dent i f i cat i on, whi ch was di f f er ent t han t he

one suggest ed by Tr i ni dad.

4 Al t hough Tr i ni dad acknowl edges t hat Hol mes' s comment was

el i ci t ed on cross- exami nat i on, he al l eges t hat i t was not di r ect l yr esponsi ve of t he quest i on posed t o her . He cl ai ms t hat hi squest i on merel y war r ant ed a si mpl e "yes" or " no" answer . We t hi nkot her wi se, si nce her need t o def end her credi bi l i t y f r omhi s at t ackr equi r ed somet hi ng mor e t han a si mpl e "yes" or "no" - - i t r equi r edan expl anat i on. Hol mes' s response was a natur al one gi ven t heci r cumst ances.

-12-


13/48

Fur t her mor e, i f Tr i ni dad r eal l y t hought t hat Hol mes' s

br i ef r ef er ence t o hi s pr et r i al i ncar cer at i on was so hi ghl y

pr ej udi ci al , he coul d have accept ed t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nvi t at i on

of a cur at i ve i nstr uct i on. Af t er al l , such an i nstr uct i on i s

"or di nar i l y an appr opr i at e met hod of pr eempt i ng a mi st r i al . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Sot omayor - Vzquez, 249 F. 3d 1, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) .

That he deci ded t hat no cur at i ve i nst r uct i on woul d be l ess

pr ej udi ci al t han gi vi ng one, and t hus dr awi ng at t ent i on t o Hol mes' s

comment , i mpl i es t hat any prej udi ce st emmi ng f r omHol mes' s comment

was not as ext r eme as Tr i ni dad al l eges i t was.

Fi nal l y, we have hel d t hat "st r ong i ndependent evi dence

of gui l t t ends t o l essen t he ef f ect of an i mpr oper comment by a

wi t ness, maki ng a mi st r i al unnecessar y. " D az, 494 F. 3d at 227.

Her e, t he i ndependent evi dence agai nst Tr i ni dad was over whel mi ng.

Thi s evi dence i ncl uded t est i mony f r omseveral cooper at i ng wi t nesses

i mpl i cat i ng Tr i ni dad i n t he conspi r acy, t he cont r act showi ng t hat

Tr i ni dad l eased t he cr ack house on Ohi o St r eet , documents showi ng

bank deposi t s made by Tr i ni dad i nt o t he bank account of t he l eader

of t he conspi r acy, and pr oof of mul t i pl e cont r ol l ed crack sal es by

Tr i ni dad t o a conf i dent i al i nf or mant . When vi ewed i n l i ght of t he

over whel mi ng nat ur e of t he evi dence agai nst Tr i ni dad, i t i s

unl i kel y t hat one i sol ated and vague comment r egardi ng hi s st atus

as a pr et r i al pr i soner woul d i r r epar abl y sway t he j ur y' s opi ni on of

Tr i ni dad f r om i nnocent t o gui l t y.

-13-


14/48

Consi der i ng t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, we

concl ude t hat Tr i ni dad has not shown t hat Hol mes' s comment

const i t ut ed cl ear pr ej udi ce t hat woul d r ender t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deni al of hi s r equest f or a mi st r i al a mani f est abuse of

di scr et i on. Thus, we af f i r m t he di str i ct cour t ' s deni al of

Tr i ni dad' s r equest f or a mi st r i al .

B. The Reasonableness of Trinidad's Sentence

Tr i ni dad al so ar gues t hat hi s sentence, whi ch was al most

f i ve year s bel ow t he advi sor y GSR, i s unr easonabl e i n l i ght of hi s

age, t he sent enci ng f act or s i n 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) , hi s r ol e i n t he

conspi r acy, and hi s cr i mi nal r ecor d.

1. Standard / Scope of Review

We revi ew t he reasonabl eness of a cr i mi nal sent ence under

an abuse- of - di scret i on st andar d. Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es, 552 U. S.

38, 51 ( 2007) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Mor eno, 613 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st

Ci r . 2010) . Thi s i s a def er ent i al st andar d, whi ch r ecogni zes t he

sent enci ng cour t ' s "super i or coi gn of vant age. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . "I n

r evi ewi ng a sent ence, we seek t o ensur e t hat i t i s bot h

pr ocedur al l y sound and subst ant i vel y r easonabl e. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Dvi l aGonzl ez, 595 F. 3d 42, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) . A sent ence i s pr ocedur al l y sound so l ong as t he di st r i ct

cour t di d not commi t a pr ocedur al er r or i n ar r i vi ng at t he

sent ence. Exampl es of pr ocedur al er r or s i ncl ude: " f ai l i ng t o

-14-


15/48

cal cul at e ( or i mpr oper l y cal cul at i ng) t he Gui del i nes r ange,

t r eat i ng t he Gui del i nes as mandat or y, f ai l i ng t o consi der t he

sect i on 3553( a) f act or s, sel ect i ng a sent ence based on cl ear l y

er r oneous f act s, or f ai l i ng t o adequat el y expl ai n t he chosen

sent ence - - i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on f or any devi at i on f r om t he

Gui del i nes range. " Ri ver a- Mor eno, 613 F. 3d at 8 ( quot i ng Gal l , 552

U. S. at 51) . "When assessi ng pr ocedur al r easonabl eness, our abuse

of di scr et i on st andar d i s mul t i f acet ed. [ W] e r evi ew f act ual

f i ndi ngs f or cl ear er r or , ar gument s t hat t he sent enci ng cour t er r ed

i n i nt er pr et i ng or appl yi ng t he gui del i nes de novo, and j udgment

cal l s f or abuse of di scr et i on si mpl i ci t er . " Uni t ed St at es v.

Ser unj ogi , 767 F. 3d 132, 142 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( al t er at i on i n

or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Once we det ermi ne t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed no

si gni f i cant pr ocedur al er r or , we t hen consi der t he subst ant i ve

r easonabl eness of t he sent ence i mposed under an abuse- of - di scr et i on

st andar d. I d. "When conduct i ng t hi s r evi ew, we t ake i nt o account

t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, i ncl udi ng t he ext ent of any

var i ance f r omt he GSR. " Ri ver a- Mor eno, 613 F. 3d at 8 ( ci t i ng Gal l ,

552 U. S. at 51) . "The l i nchpi n of a r easonabl e sent ence i s a

pl ausi bl e sent enci ng r at i onal e and a def ensi bl e r esul t . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Ramos, 763 F. 3d 45, 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d at 96) .

-15-


16/48

2. Analysis

Tr i ni dad does not r ai se any cl ai m of procedural er r or .

Rat her , he compl ai ns about t he ul t i mat e sent enci ng det er mi nat i on.

Al t hough Tr i ni dad acknowl edges t hat t he t r i al cour t engaged i n "a

t hought f ul anal ysi s" and "di scussed i n det ai l t he sent enci ng

f act or s i [ t ] consi der ed i n f ashi oni ng i t s sent ence of 240 mont hs, "

he ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s assessment of hi s r ol e i n t he

conspi r acy was er r oneous si nce he was a "yout hf ul , l ow- l evel dr ug

peddl er wi t h a mi nor r ecor d, " who speaks "ver y l i t t l e Engl i sh" and,

t hus, shoul d have r ecei ved a gr eat er downward var i ance t han t he one

accor ded by t he t r i al cour t .

" [ A] def endant who at t empt s t o br and a wi t hi n- t he- r ange

sent ence as unr easonabl e must car r y a heavy bur den. " Uni t ed St at es

v. Pel l et i er , 469 F. 3d 194, 204 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Cl ogst on, 662 F. 3d 588, 592- 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)

( "Chal l engi ng a sent ence as subst ant i vel y unr easonabl e i s a

bur densome t ask i n any case, and one t hat i s even mor e burdensome

wher e, as her e, t he chal l enged sent ence i s wi t hi n a pr oper l y

cal cul at ed GSR. " ) . Tr i ni dad' s bur den, however , i s even heavi er

because hi s sent ence was bel ow t he appl i cabl e advi sor y GSR. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Mer r i t t , 755 F. 3d 6, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( "I t i s a

r ar e bel ow- t he- r ange sent ence t hat wi l l pr ove vul ner abl e to a

def endant ' s cl ai mof subst ant i ve unr easonabl eness. " ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Ki ng, 741 F. 3d 305, 310 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ) ) . He "must

-16-


17/48

adduce f ai r l y power f ul mi t i gat i ng r easons and per suade us t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t was unr easonabl e i n bal anci ng pr os and cons despi t e

t he l at i t ude i mpl i ci t i n sayi ng t hat a sent ence must be

r easonabl e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mader a- Or t i z, 637 F. 3d 26, 30 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Tr i ni dad has not car r i ed hi s bur den. The di st r i ct cour t

car ef ul l y consi der ed al l r el evant f act or s and expl ai ned i n det ai l

t he basi s f or i t s concl usi on t hat Tr i ni dad was not a "sol di er " or

a " l ow- l evel peddl er , " as he cl ai med t o be. The di st r i ct cour t

emphasi zed t hat Tr i ni dad had thr ee maj or r ol es i n the conspi r acy,

consi st i ng of : ( 1) "wat ch[ i ng] t he dr ugs comi ng i n and out and

wat ch[ i ng] ot her peopl e wi t h t he dr ugs" ( t he "Babysi t t er Rol e" ) ;

( 2) act ual dr ug deal i ng; and ( 3) deposi t i ng t he dr ug pr oceeds i n

Cabr er a' s bank account ( t he "Deposi t or Rol e" ) . I t not ed t hat t he

Deposi t or Rol e was a "pr et t y si gni f i cant r ol e" t hat put hi m i n a

di f f er ent l evel t han si mpl y an "out si de sol di er . " The di st r i ct

cour t al so not ed t hat Tr i ni dad car r i ed a gun i n f ur t her ance of t he

conspi r acy, whi ch al so put hi mi n a cat egor y di f f er ent f r omt hat of

ot her l ower - l evel conspi r at or s.

Tr i ni dad t r i es t o mi ni mi ze hi s Deposi t or Rol e and hi s

carr yi ng of a gun by ar gui ng t hat he somet i mes r equi r ed hel p at t he

bank due t o hi s l ack of pr of i ci ency i n Engl i sh, t hat t he conspi r acy

l eader s vi ewed hi m as di spensabl e si nce he was r equi r ed t o go i nt o

t he open wi t h l arge sums of money, and that t he reason f or get t i ng

-17-


18/48

t he gun was "opaque. " However , Tr i ni dad' s di f f er ent vi ew about t he

si gni f i cance of hi s r ol es does not mean t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

vi ew was unr easonabl e.

As Tr i ni dad r ecogni zes, i n maki ng i t s det er mi nat i on t he

di st r i ct cour t engaged i n "a t hought f ul anal ysi s. " I t expl ai ned

t hat i t had t aken i nt o consi der at i on each of t he f act or s set f or t h

i n 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) , i ncl udi ng t he obl i gat i on t o i mpose a

sent ence t hat i s suf f i ci ent , but no gr eat er t han necessar y t o

achi eve t he pur poses of t he l aw. The di st r i ct cour t al so expl ai ned

i n det ai l t he sent enci ng f act or s of Tr i ni dad' s past , hi s age, hi s

r ol es i n t he conspi r acy, and t he need f or puni shment . Af t er

pr ovi di ng t hi s expl anat i on, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he

advi sor y GSR was t oo har sh and i mposed a sent ence al most f i ve years

bel ow t he bot t om of t he advi sory GSR. Thi s was a def ensi bl e

r esul t , and t he cour t st at ed a pl ausi bl e r at i onal e f or r eachi ng i t .

Ramos, 763 F. 3d at 58. We t her ef or e af f i r m hi s sent ence. 5

5 I n t he summar y of t he argument sect i on of hi s br i ef , Tr i ni dadbr i ef l y al l eges t hat hi s sent ence const i t ut es a puni shment f orgoi ng t o t r i al , si nce anot her coconspi r at or whom he asser t s wassi mi l ar i n " l evel " t o hi m r ecei ved an 84- mont h sent ence. Al t houghTr i ni dad does not i dent i f y t he "si mi l ar i n l evel coconspi r at or , "we must not e t hat many of Tr i ni dad' s coconspi r at or s r ecei veddownward depart ur es f or subst ant i al assi st ance t o t he gover nmentand t hat J acob Garc a, who r ecei ved an 84- mont h sent ence, was one

of t hem. Cooper at i on wi t h t he gover nment i s a l egi t i mat e basi s f ora di spar i t y i n sent ence. Uni t ed St at es v. Vzquez- Ri ver a, 470 F. 3d443, 449 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . I n any event , Tr i ni dad di d not devel opt hi s ar gument i n hi s br i ef and, t her ef or e, i t i s wai ved. SeeUni t ed St at es v. Mar t nez, 762 F. 3d 127, 132 n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)( " [ I ] ssues adver t ed t o i n a per f unct ory manner , unaccompani ed bysome ef f or t at devel oped argument at i on, are deemed wai ved. "

-18-


19/48

III. Discussion of Cogswell's Trial Issues

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Cogswel l chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence

suppor t i ng hi s convi ct i on. He ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t err ed

i n denyi ng hi s mot i on f or acqui t t al because " t he evi dence onl y

support ed a f i ndi ng that [ he] was a cr ack cocai ne user and cust omer

of t he conspi r acy. "


We r evi ew de novo the di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on

made under Rul e 29 f or j udgment of acqui t t al . Uni t ed St ates v.

Ul l oa, 760 F. 3d 113, 118 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . I n our r evi ew,

we exami ne t he evi dence, bot h di r ect andci r cumst ant i al , i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t ot he j ur y' s ver di ct . We do not assess t hecr edi bi l i t y of a wi t ness, as that i s a r ol er eserved f or t he j ur y. Nor need we beconvi nced t hat t he gover nment succeeded i nel i mi nat i ng ever y possi bl e t heor y consi st ent

wi t h the def endant ' s i nnocence. Rat her , wemust deci de whet her t hat evi dence, i ncl udi ngal l pl ausi bl e i nf er ences dr awn t her ef r om,woul d al l ow a r at i onal f act f i nder t o concl udebeyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he def endantcommi t t ed t he char ged cr i me.

Uni t ed St at es v. Tr oy, 583 F. 3d 20, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . " [ D] ef endant s

chal l engi ng convi ct i ons f or i nsuf f i ci ency of evi dence f ace an

uphi l l bat t l e on appeal . " Uni t ed St at es v. Li pscomb, 539 F. 3d 32,

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st . Ci r . 1990) ) ) .

-19-


20/48

40 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Pol anco, 634 F. 3d 39, 4445

( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( not i ng t hat "a suf f i ci ency chal l enge i s a t ough

sel l " ) .

"To sust ai n a dr ug conspi r acy convi ct i on, t he gover nment

must prove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat an agr eement exi st ed t o

commi t t he under l yi ng of f ense and t hat t he def endant el ect ed t o

j oi n t he agreement , i nt endi ng t hat t he under l yi ng of f ense be

commi t t ed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Li r i ano, 761 F. 3d 131, 135 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) . "An agr eement t o j oi n a conspi r acy may be expr ess or t aci t ,

and may be pr oved by di r ect or ci r cumst ant i al evi dence. " I d.

" [ E] ach coconspi r at or need not know of or have cont act wi t h al l

other member s, nor must t hey know al l of t he det ai l s of t he

conspi r acy or par t i ci pat e i n ever y act i n f ur t her ance of i t . " I d.

We have hel d t hat " t he cont i nui ng pur chase and sal e rel at i onshi p

bet ween [ t he deal er s and the def endant ] , and the deal er s' knowl edge

of [ t he def endant ' s] r e- di st r i but i on, woul d per mi t a j ur y t o i nf er

bot h an agr eement bet ween t hem t hat [ t he def endant ] possess t he

dr ugs and t he r equi si t e i nt ent as t o di st r i but i on. " Uni t ed St at es

v. Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d 12, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( al t er at i ons i n

or i gi nal ) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

-20-


21/48

2. Analysis

Cogswel l al l eges t hat t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence

t hat he agr eed t o j oi n t he conspi r acy' s goal and t hat t he evi dence

onl y support ed a f i ndi ng t hat he was a cr ack cocai ne user and

cust omer of t he conspi r acy. I n support of hi s ar gument , Cogswel l

emphasi zes t he t est i mony of Cabr er a, and di scr edi t s t he t est i mony

of f i ve ot her wi t nesses who t est i f i ed t hat Cogswel l was i ndeed a

member of t he conspi r acy. Cogswel l underval ues t he evi dence

agai nst hi m.

Cabr er a, descr i bed as t he l eader of t he conspi r acy,

t est i f i ed t hat he knew Cogswel l because he recal l ed an occasi on

when he was buyi ng dr ugs f or per sonal use. Cabr er a di d not l i ve i n

Bangor , al t hough he vi si t ed i t at t i mes. The ot her f i ve wi t nesses

t est i f i ed t hat a cont i nui ng pur chase and sal e r el at i onshi p exi st ed

bet ween Cogswel l and t he deal er s. Speci f i cal l y, t hey t est i f i ed

t hat t hey woul d see Cogswel l al most ever y day t o obt ai n crack

cocai ne t o sel l ; t hat Cogswel l was one of t he peopl e i nvol ved i n

t he dr ug operat i on and t hat he was buyi ng ei t her $400 or $800 of

cr ack cocai ne at a t i me; t hat Cogswel l "bel onged to t he company, he

was worki ng t oget her wi t h [ t hem] , movi ng cr ack and maki ng

del i ver i es; " t hat Cogswel l was pr ovi ded wi t h packet s of cr ack

cocai ne that he woul d r esel l f or $50 each and t hat he had t r aded a

gun f or t en bags of dr ugs; t hat Cogswel l was " sel l i ng cr ack" t hat

t he New Yor k i mpor t ers were pr ovi di ng; and t hat Cogswel l was one of

-21-


22/48

t he peopl e f r om whom Hol mes woul d buy cr ack cocai ne at t he 100B

Ohi o St r eet apar t ment . Unl i ke Cabr er a, t hese ot her f i ve wi t nesses

l i ved i n Bangor .

Cogswel l ur ges us t o di scr edi t t he t est i moni al evi dence

f r om t hese f i ve wi t nesses because t hey wer e t est i f yi ng af t er

agr eei ng t o cooperate wi t h t he gover nment . However , he f ai l s t o

r ecogni ze t hat Cabr er a was i n t he same si t uat i on. Fur t her more,

Cogswel l cr oss- exami ned t hese wi t nesses about t hei r cooper at i on

agr eement s, and t he di st r i ct cour t caut i oned t hat t he t est i mony of

cooper at i ng wi t nesses shoul d be consi der ed wi t h "par t i cul ar

caut i on. " I t was f or t he j ur y t o deci de whet her t o credi t t he

t est i mony of Cabr era (who l i ved i n New Yor k and, t hus, was not

pr esent i n Bangor al l t he t i me) or t hat of t he f i ve ot her wi t nesses

( who spent more t i me i n Bangor ) . See Uni t ed St at es v. Hernndez,

218 F. 3d 58, 66 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( "I t i s not our r ol e t o assess

t he cr edi bi l i t y of t r i al wi t nesses or t o r esol ve conf l i ct s i n t he

evi dence, i nst ead we must r esol ve al l such i ssues i n f avor of t he

ver di ct . " ) . Besi des, "[ t ] he t est i mony of a si ngl e wi t ness can be

enough t o suppor t t he gover nment ' s case, and even t he

uncor r oborat ed t est i mony of an i nf or mant may suf f i ce t o est abl i sh

t he f act s under l yi ng a def endant ' s convi ct i on. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Mei ses, 645 F. 3d 5, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

-22-


23/48

I n addi t i on, t he j ur y' s ver di ct i s suppor t ed by ot her

evi dence, i ncl udi ng conspi r acy dr ug l edger s and expense sheet s

showi ng t hat Cogswel l had recei ved twent y- bag quant i t i es of cr ack

cocai ne f r om t he New Yor k expor t er s, deposi t sl i ps showi ng t hat

Cogswel l deposi t ed over $26, 000 i n cash i nt o Cabr er a' s bank

account , and t he f act t hat Cogswel l r esi ded i n t he "cr ack house. "

I n t hi s case, t he pr osecut i on al l eged t hat Cogswel l

par t i ci pat ed i n t he conspi r acy by repeat edl y pur chasi ng cr ack

cocai ne f r om t he New Yor k i mpor t er s f or r esal e. Based on al l t he

evi dence pr esent ed, we concl ude t hat a rat i onal f act f i nder coul d

concl ude beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat Cogswel l knowi ngl y and

vol unt ar i l y j oi ned t he char ged conspi r acy. Thus, we af f i r m t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Cogswel l ' s Rul e 29 mot i on.

B. Government's Closing Argument

Cogswel l al l eges t hat dur i ng cl osi ng ar gument s, t he

government mi sr epr esent ed st at ement s made by hi mt o l aw enf or cement

dur i ng an i nt er vi ew, and t hat t he r esul t i ng pr ej udi ci al ef f ect

warr ant s t hat hi s convi ct i on and sent ence be vacated. We di sagr ee.

1. Background

Agent Shawn Gr een ( "Gr een") i ntervi ewed Cogswel l on

November 2, 2011, af t er l aw enf orcement r ai ded t he 100B Ohi o St r eet

apar t ment . Gr een t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat , dur i ng t hat i nt er vi ew,

Cogswel l "admi t t ed t o usi ng mar i j uana" and sai d t hat " i n t he past ,

he had pi cked up pot f or ot her peopl e. " Gr een al so t est i f i ed t hat

-23-


24/48

he had asked Cogswel l i f he used cocai ne and t hat " [ i ] ni t i al l y,

[ Cogswel l ] deni ed i t , t hough he admi t t ed he had i n t he past and

. . . made a st atement t hat he had used i t t he week pr i or . " Gr een

f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat "dur i ng t hat l i ne of quest i oni ng wher e

[ Cogswel l ] sai d t hat at t i mes he woul d get t hi ngs f or ot her peopl e,

[ Cogswel l ] st at ed he' s had t hat cocai ne t he week bef or e t o t ake i t

t o a par t y on Essex St r eet i n Bangor . " Fi nal l y, Gr een t est i f i ed

t hat Cogswel l t ol d hi m t hat he was l i vi ng at 100 Ohi o St r eet wi t h

hi s gi r l f r i end.

Dur i ng cl osi ng argument s, t he gover nment mi squot ed Gr een

as havi ng t est i f i ed t hat Cogswel l : ( 1) "admi t t ed he got some

cocai ne t he week bef ore and brought i t t o a par t y t o hel p someone

out ; " and ( 2) "sai d he, [ hi s gi r l f r i end] , and J acob l i ved at t he

house. He di dn' t ment i on [ t he other conspi r acy member s r esi di ng at

t he house] . "

These st at ements wer e made i n t he mi ddl e of t he

government ' s cl osi ng argument . Cogswel l wai t ed unt i l t he government

f i ni shed i t s cl osi ng ar gument t o obj ect at si debar t o t he st at ement

r egardi ng who l i ved i n t he 100B Ohi o St r eet apar t ment . He di d not

speci f i cal l y obj ect t o t he st at ement of hi s t aki ng dr ugs t o a par t y

t o hel p someone out . The di st r i ct cour t t ol d Cogswel l t hat i t had

al r eady i nst r uct ed t he j ur y that "what t he l awyer s say i s not

evi dence and t hat t hey' r e t o base t hei r ver di ct sol el y on t he

evi dence. " The di st r i ct cour t al so advi sed Cogswel l t hat he was

-24-


25/48

f r ee i n hi s cl osi ng argument t o argue t hat what Gr een had st at ed

was not bef or e t he j ur y and t hat t he j ur y shoul d not consi der i t .

Cogswel l f ol l owed t he suggest i on.

Cogswel l cont ends t hat t he government ' s mi sst at ement s

suggest t hat he admi t t ed t o deal i ng cocai ne and t hat he at t empt ed

t o cover up f or ot her conspi r acy member s. Cogswel l argues t hat ,

al t hough t hese st at ement s wer e not del i ber at e or r ecur r ent , t hey

di d i nt er f er e gr eat l y wi t h t he hear t of hi s def ense ( t hat he was

mer el y a user , not a deal er ) . He compl ai ns t hat t he cour t i ssued

no "expl i ci t or caut i onar y i nst r ucti on" af t er t he obj ecti on t o

t hese st at ement s.


When a cont emporaneous obj ect i on t o a chal l enged comment

i s made, we revi ew de novo whether t he comment was i mproper .

Uni t ed St at es v. D az- Cast r o, 752 F. 3d 101, 110 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gl over , 558 F. 3d 71, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Appol on, 695 F. 3d 44, 65- 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . I f

we concl ude t hat t he comment was i mproper , we t hen revi ew f or

har ml ess er r or . D az- Cast r o, 752 F. 3d at 110. Under t he har ml ess-

er r or st andar d, r ever sal i s war r ant ed onl y i f t he comment has

"l i kel y af f ect ed t he t r i al ' s out come. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a-

Gar c a, 574 F. 3d 5, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Vzquez- Ri ver a, 407 F. 3d 476, 486 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) .

-25-


26/48

I f , on t he cont r ary, no cont emporaneous obj ect i on was

made, we revi ew under t he f our - pr onged pl ai n- er r or st andar d.

Uni t ed St at es v. Hi l ar i o- Hi l ar i o, 529 F. 3d 65, 74- 75 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Al l en, 469 F. 3d 11, 16 ( 1st Ci r .

2006) ) . "An unpr eserved er r or i s deemed pl ai n ( and, t her ef or e, t o

af f ect subst ant i al r i ght s) onl y i f t he r evi ewi ng cour t f i nds t hat

i t skewed t he f undament al f ai r ness or basi c i nt egr i t y of t he

pr oceedi ng bel ow i n some maj or r espect . " Uni t ed St at es v. Tayl or ,

54 F. 3d 967, 972 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gr i f f i n,

818 F. 2d 97, 100 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Frady,

456 U. S. 152, 163 n. 14 ( 1982) ( hol di ng t hat t he pl ai n- er r or

doct r i ne appl i es i n t hose ci r cumst ances i n whi ch, absent appel l at e

i nt er vent i on, a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce woul d ot her wi se r esul t ) . To

make t hi s det er mi nat i on, we consi der al l at t endant ci r cumst ances

wi t h emphasi s on: " ( 1) t he ext ent t o whi ch t he pr osecut or ' s conduct

i s r ecur r ent and/ or del i ber at e; ( 2) t he ext ent t o whi ch t he t r i al

j udge' s i nst r uct i ons i nsul at ed t he j ury agai nst , or pal l i at ed, t he

possi bi l i t y of unf ai r pr ej udi ce; and ( 3) t he over al l st r engt h of

t he pr osecut i on' s case, wi t h par t i cul ar r egar d t o t he l i kel i hood

t hat any pr ej udi ce mi ght have af f ect ed t he j ur y' s j udgment . "

Tayl or , 54 F. 3d at 977; Uni t ed St at es v. Gi r y, 818 F. 2d 120, 133

( 1st Ci r . 1987) .

"[ T] he j ur i spr udence of pl ai n er r or i nvest s subst ant i al

di scret i on i n t he cour t of appeal s. " Tayl or , 54 F. 3d at 973. Thi s

-26-


27/48

di scr et i on shoul d be exer ci sed spar i ngl y, and shoul d be reser ved

f or t he cor r ect i on of t hose f ew er r or s t hat "so poi soned t he wel l

t hat t he t r i al ' s out come was l i kel y af f ect ed. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Mej a- Lozano, 829 F. 2d 268, 274 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) .

3. Analysis

The gover nment ar gues t hat pl ai n- er r or r evi ew appl i es t o

Cogswel l ' s chal l enge of bot h st at ement s. I t al l eges t hat Cogswel l

never obj ect ed t o t he st at ement r egar di ng hi s t aki ng dr ugs t o a

part y f or someone el se and t hat , al t hough he obj ect ed t o t he

st atement r egardi ng who l i ved at t he apart ment , hi s obj ect i on came

t oo l at e because he wai t ed unt i l t he gover nment had f i ni shed i t s

cl osi ng ar gument t o r ai se i t .

We agr ee wi t h t he government t hat Cogswel l di d not obj ect

t o t he st atement r egardi ng hi s t aki ng dr ugs t o a part y f or someone

el se. The r ecor d shows t hat Cogswel l ' s obj ect i on made r ef er ence

onl y t o t he st atement r egardi ng who l i ved at t he apart ment . Thus,

hi s chal l enge t o t he f or mer st at ement i s subj ect t o pl ai n- er r or

r evi ew. However , cont r ary t o t he gover nment ' s assert i ons, Cogswel l

t i mel y obj ect ed t o t he st at ement r egar di ng who l i ved i n t he

apar t ment . Al t hough he di d not obj ect t o i t i mmedi at el y af t er t he

st at ement was made, we f i nd t hat hi s obj ect i on, made at t he end of

t he pr osecut i on' s cl osi ng ar gument , was suf f i ci ent l y t i mel y t o

pr eserve t he i ssue f or appeal . See Uni t ed St ates v. Mandel baum,

803 F. 2d 42, 44 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) ( hol di ng t hat t he obj ect i on had

-27-


28/48

been suf f i ci ent l y t i mel y when t he def ense wai t ed unt i l t he

gover nment ' s r ebut t al t o obj ect t o a st atement made dur i ng t he

government ' s cl osi ng st at ement ) . Thus, we r evi ew de novo whether

t hi s st at ement was i mpr oper and, i f we concl ude t hat i t was, we

r evi ew f or har ml ess er r or . D az- Cast r o, 752 F. 3d at 110.

As Cogswel l r ecogni zes, t he st at ement r egar di ng hi s

t aki ng dr ugs t o a par t y f or someone el se was i sol at ed i n nat ur e and

t her e i s no evi dence t hat i t was del i ber at e. I n f act , i t i s not

even cl ear t hat i t was a mi sst atement of t he evi dence. Gr een

t est i f i ed t hat Cogswel l had i n t he past pi cked up mar i j uana f or

ot her peopl e. The government t hen asked about cocai ne. Gr een

r esponded t hat "dur i ng t hat l i ne of quest i oni ng wher e he sai d t hat

at t i mes he woul d get t hi ngs f or ot her peopl e, [ Cogswel l ] st at ed

he' s had t hat cocai ne t he week bef ore t o t ake i t t o a part y on

Essex St r eet i n Bangor . " Thus, t he government argued t hat Cogswel l

had made t he st at ement about br i ngi ng cocai ne t o the par t y i n t he

cont ext of a quest i on about obt ai ni ng dr ugs f or ot her s.

Al so, t he di str i ct cour t ' s i nstr uct i ons to t he j ur y

bef or e begi nni ng cl osi ng ar gument s wer e st r ong and expl i ci t . At

t he out set , t he cour t made cl ear t hat st at ement s and argument s of

counsel wer e not evi dence, and i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t o consi der onl y

t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d. See Gi r y, 818 F. 2d at 134 ( " f i ndi ng

t he i mpact of pr osecut or i al mi sst at ement s mi t i gat ed by i nst r uct i ons

t el l i ng t he j ur y, among ot her t hi ngs, t o ' [ b] ear i n mi nd t hat

-28-


29/48

ar gument s of counsel . . . ar e not evi dence' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Macci ni , 721 F. 2d 840, 847 ( 1st Ci r . 1983) ) ) .

Fur t hermore, we have al r eady concl uded t hat t he evi dence agai nst

Cogswel l was st r ong, whi ch makes i t l ess l i kel y t hat any

mi sst at ement coul d have af f ect ed t he out come of t he t r i al . 6 See

Gi r y, 818 F. 2d at 133- 34 ( " [ P] r ej udi ce t hat sur vi ves t he char ge i s

deemed l ess l i kel y t o have af f ect ed t he out come of t he t r i al wher e

st r ong evi dence suppor t s t he pr osecut i on' s case. Per haps t he

si ngl e most si gni f i cant f actor . . . i s t he st r engt h of t he case

agai nst t he def endant . " ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) . Thus,

Cogswel l has not demonst r at ed t hat t he gover nment ' s st at ement

const i t ut ed pl ai n er r or r equi r i ng a new t r i al .

Regardi ng t he st at ement about t he peopl e who l i ved i n t he

apar t ment , we agr ee wi t h Cogswel l t hat t he government mi sst at ed

Gr een' s t est i mony because Cogswel l never ment i oned t hat J acob al so

l i ved i n t he apar t ment . However , even f i ndi ng t hat t he

gover nment ' s st at ement was i mpr oper , i t i s har ml ess. Thi s

st at ement , t oo, was i sol at ed, not del i ber at e, and mi t i gat ed by t he

j udge' s i nst r uct i ons t o t he j ury. I t i s hi ghl y unl i kel y t hat t he

6 The evi dence agai nst Cogswel l was descr i bed by t he di st r i ctcour t as over whel mi ng. At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct j udge t ol dCogswel l : " [ T] her e' s no quest i on i n my mi nd, absol ut el y no quest i oni n my mi nd t hat t he j ur y ver di ct was corr ect . The evi dence agai nstyou was absol utel y over whel mi ng. " We have no cause t o di sagreewi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s assessment on t hi s poi nt .

-29-


30/48

chal l enged st at ement af f ect ed t he t r i al ' s out come, because of t he

st r ong evi dence agai nst Cogswel l .

I n sum, r ever sal f or mi sr epr esent at i on of t he evi dence

dur i ng t he gover nment ' s cl osi ng ar gument i s i nappr opr i at e i n t hi s

case, si nce t hese mi sst at ement s wer e unl i kel y t o have af f ect ed t he

out come of t he case or t he f undament al f ai r ness and i nt egr i t y of

t he tr i al pr oceedi ngs.

IV. Discussion of Cogswell's Sentencing Issues

Cogswel l al l eges t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed

mul t i pl e pr ocedur al er r or s under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes and t hat

t he sent ence i mposed was unreasonabl y har sh i n compar i son t o t hose

i mposed on hi s coconspi r at or s. I n assessi ng Cogswel l ' s al l eged

pr ocedur al er r or s, we "r evi ew f act ual f i ndi ngs f or cl ear er r or ,

ar gument s t hat t he sent enci ng cour t er r ed i n i nt er pr et i ng or

appl yi ng the gui del i nes de novo, and j udgment cal l s f or abuse of

di scr et i on si mpl i ci t er . " Ser unj ogi , 767 F. 3d at 142 ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) . We t hen consi der t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t he

sent ence under an abuse- of - di scr et i on st andar d. I d.

A. Denial of Role Reduction

Cogswel l ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have

gr ant ed hi m a t wo- or t hr ee- l evel r educt i on i n t he appl i cabl e

gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange f or hi s r ol e i n t he conspi r acy. We

r evi ew t hi s i ssue f or cl ear er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Rosa- Car i no,

615 F. 3d 75, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( "The di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on

-30-


31/48

whet her t o gr ant a downward adj ust ment f or a mi nor r ol e i s usual l y

a f act - based deci si on t hat we r evi ew f or cl ear er r or . " ( ci t i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Snchez, 354 F. 3d 70, 74 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) ) . " I f

t he r ecor d suppor t s at l east t wo per mi ssi bl e i nf er ences, t he

f act f i nder ' s choi ce bet ween or among t hem cannot be cl ear l y

er r oneous. Accor di ngl y, we r ar el y r ever se a di st r i ct cour t ' s

deci si on r egar di ng whet her t o appl y a mi nor r ol e adj ust ment . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Br avo, 489 F. 3d 1, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( i nt er nal

ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ol i ver o, 552 F. 3d 34,

41 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "[ B] at t l es over a def endant ' s st at us . . . wi l l

al most al ways be won or l ost i n t he di st r i ct cour t . " ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) ) ; Snchez, 354 F. 3d at 74 ( st at i ng t hat unl ess t he

f i ndi ngs of f act ar e "cl ear l y er r oneous, " hi gher cour t s must def er

t o those f i ndi ngs as t he sent enci ng cour t s have a super i or "coi gn

of vant age") .

The Sent enci ng Gui del i nes permi t a cour t t o awar d a

f our - l evel decr ease t o a def endant who was a mi ni mal par t i ci pant i n

t he cr i mi nal act i vi t y, a t wo- l evel decr ease t o a def endant who was

a mi nor par t i ci pant i n t he cri mi nal act i vi t y, and a t hr ee- l evel

decrease t o persons whose par t i ci pat i on was more t han mi ni mal but

l ess t han mi nor . U. S. S. G. 3B1. 2; Uni t ed St at es v. I nnamor at i ,

996 F. 2d 456, 490 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . "To qual i f y as a mi nor

par t i ci pant , a def endant must pr ove t hat he i s bot h l ess cul pabl e

t han hi s cohor t s i n t he par t i cul ar cr i mi nal endeavor and l ess

-31-


32/48

cul pabl e than t he maj or i t y of t hose wi t hi n t he uni ver se of per sons

par t i ci pat i ng i n si mi l ar cr i mes. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sant os, 357

F. 3d 136, 142 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . "To qual i f y as a mi ni mal

part i ci pant , a def endant must pr ove t hat he i s among t he l east

cul pabl e of t hose i nvol ved i n t he cri mi nal act i vi t y. " I d.

Cogswel l al l eges t hat he was ent i t l ed t o a t wo- or t hr ee-

l evel r educt i on i n t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange because t he

evi dence "at most support ed a f i ndi ng t hat [ he] was a r egul ar

cust omer who sol d on t he si de t o support hi s addi ct i on. " However ,

t he di st r i ct cour t rej ected t hi s char acter i zat i on. The di st r i ct

cour t car ef ul l y consi der ed Cogswel l ' s r equest f or a r ol e r educt i on

and r ej ect ed i t . I n r eachi ng i t s concl usi on, t he cour t emphasi zed

t he f ol l owi ng f act s: Cogswel l ' s par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi r acy

ext ended t hr oughout t he ent i r e t i me of t he charged conspi r acy;

Cogswel l was not a mere user , but r at her was "a cl assi c mi ddl eman"

who "got dr ugs f r om t he conspi r acy [ and] sol d t hem t o l ocal

cust omer s" whi l e usi ng some of t hose dr ugs hi msel f ; Cogswel l t r aded

a f i r ear m f or t en bags of crack; Cogswel l , wi t h hi s gi r l f r i end,

act ual l y moved i nt o, and was l i vi ng, at t he "headquar t er s" of t he

conspi r acy; Cogswel l was t r ust ed by hi s coconspi r at or s t o deposi t

dr ug pr oceeds i nt o a bank account , or assi st ed i n maki ng t hose

deposi t s; and Cogswel l approached Hol mes so t hat she woul d buy a

f i r ear m f or t he conspi r acy, whi ch she di d. Each of t hese f i ndi ngs

about Cogswel l ' s r ol e was suppor t ed by t he t r i al r ecor d and, t hus,

-32-


33/48

was not cl ear l y er r oneous. On t hese f act s, t he di st r i ct cour t

f ound t hat Cogswel l was not l ess cul pabl e, but r ather "mor e

cul pabl e t han many of hi s cohor t s i n t hi s par t i cul ar cr i mi nal

act i vi t y and [ t hat ] he was cer t ai nl y not l ess cul pabl e t han t he

maj or i t y of t hose wi t hi n t he uni ver se of per sons par t i ci pat i ng i n

si mi l ar cr i mes. " Cogswel l has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed, much l ess cl ear l y er r ed, i n i t s det er mi nat i on

of hi s r ol e i n t he of f ense. 7 Thus, we af f i r m t he di str i ct cour t ' s

deni al of a r ol e r educt i on.

B. Determination of Drug Quantity

For sent enci ng pur poses, t he di st r i ct cour t at t r i but ed t o

Cogswel l 841 gr ams of cr ack cocai ne. Thi s amount i ncl uded t he

quant i t y of dr ugs t hat he per sonal l y deal t pr i or t o movi ng t o t he

100B Ohi o St r eet apar t ment ( 141 gr ams) and t he ent i r e amount of

cr ack cocai ne t hat t he conspi r acy i nt ended t o di st r i but e dur i ng t he

7 Cogswel l ' s r el i ance on I nnamor at i , 996 F. 2d at 489- 90, i smi spl aced. Ther e, t he def endant , who had not par t i ci pated i npar t i cul ar dr ug t r ansact i ons, but r at her had pr ovi ded ser vi ces t oa dr ug di st r i but or , r ecei ved a t hr ee- l evel r educt i on by t hedi st r i ct cour t on t he gr ounds t hat "he was not shown t o have

cocai ne hi msel f or t o have shar ed i n t he pr of i t s. " I d. Thedef endant appeal ed, aski ng f or a f our - l evel r educt i on, whi ch t hi scour t r ej ect ed af t er concl udi ng t hat t he t hr ee- l evel r educt i on was"gener ous. " I d. Unl i ke t he def endant i n I nnamor at i , Cogswel lpar t i ci pat ed i n dr ug t r ansact i ons, had cocai ne i n hi s possessi on onan al most dai l y basi s, and pr of i t ed f r omhi s conduct ( si nce he pai dt he New Yor k i mport er s $40 f or a bag of cr ack and sol d i t f or $50) .

-33-


34/48

l engt h of t i me t hat Cogswel l l i ved wi t hi n t he apar t ment ( 700

grams) . 8

Cogswel l ar gues t hat hol di ng hi m r esponsi bl e f or t he

ent i r e amount of cocai ne i nvol ved i n t he conspi r acy af t er he moved

t o 100B Ohi o St r eet ( 700 gr ams) i s unr easonabl e because: t he dr ugs

and money wer e st or ed on a di f f er ent l evel t han hi s l i vi ng space

wi t hi n t he apart ment ; t her e was no evi dence of hi m movi ng or

handl i ng such l ar ge quant i t i es of dr ugs; and t her e was no evi dence

of a cl ose r el at i onshi p bet ween hi m and t he l eader of t he

conspi r acy, so i t was not f or eseeabl e to hi m t hat such an i mmense

quant i t y of cr ack cocai ne was i nvol ved.

"[ I ] n a conspi r acy case, t he sent enci ng cour t cannot

aut omat i cal l y assi gn t he conspi r acy- wi de amount t o a def endant .

Rat her , t he sent enci ng cour t must make an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng as

t o dr ug amount s at t r i but abl e t o, or f or eseeabl e by, t hat

def endant . " Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzl ez- Vl ez, 587 F. 3d 494, 502

( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ;

Sant os, 357 F. 3d at 140 ( " [ E] ach coconspi r at or i s r esponsi bl e not

onl y f or t he dr ugs he act ual l y handl ed but al so f or t he f ul l amount

8 Cogswel l di d not r ai se any cl ai m based on Al l eyne v. Uni t edSt at es, 570 U. S. ____ , 133 S. Ct . 2151, 168 L. Ed. 2d 203 ( 2013) ,ei t her her e or i n t he di st r i ct cour t , and we t ake no posi t i on on i tei t her . I n f act, at hi s sent enci ng hear i ng t he di st r i ct j udgespeci f i cal l y asked: "Fi r st , I under st and t hat t her e' s no Al l eynei ssue her e, i s t hat r i ght ?, " t o whi ch Cogswel l r esponded: "Wel l ,t hat ' s r i ght , Your Honor . . . . "

-34-


35/48

of dr ugs t hat he coul d reasonabl y have ant i ci pat ed woul d be wi t hi n

t he ambi t of t he conspi r acy. " ) .

We r evi ew i ndi vi dual i zed det er mi nat i ons of dr ug

quant i t i es f or cl ear er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Cor t s- Cabn, 691

F. 3d 1, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . "[ T] he di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on

wi l l be uphel d so l ong as t he appr oxi mat i on r epr esent s a reasoned

est i mat e of act ual quant i t y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sepl veda- Her nndez,

752 F. 3d 22, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed)

( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ci nt r nEchaut egui , 604 F. 3d 1, 67 ( 1st

Ci r . 2010) ) . Such a det ermi nat i on need onl y be support ed by a

pr eponder ance of t he evi dence. Gonzl ez- Vl ez, 587 F. 3d at 502.

Her e, t her e was no cl ear er r or i n t he dr ug quant i t y

det er mi nat i on. Al t hough Cogswel l mi ght have l i ved on a di f f er ent

f l oor t han wher e t he dr ugs wer e st or ed, he l i ved f or at l east t wo

mont hs i n t he "headquart er s" of t he conspi r acy and wi t h t he peopl e

who wer e i n charge of i t . He was abl e t o see t he t r af f i c of

cust omers comi ng i n and out of t he apar t ment t o buy drugs, and he

hi msel f was buyi ng quant i t i es of cr ack cocai ne al most dai l y. See

Uni t ed St ates v. De La Cr uz, 996 F. 2d 1307, 1314- 15 ( 1st Ci r . 1993)

( f i ndi ng def endant t o have f or eseen t he l ar ge quant i t y of dr ugs

i nvol ved i n t he conspi r acy as he saw f i r st hand t he number of peopl e

and vehi cl es pr esent at t he warehouse where t he dr ugs were st ored) .

Fur t her more, he was ent r ust ed t o deposi t over $26, 000 i n dr ug- sal es

pr oceeds i nt o t he conspi r acy l eader ' s account , and i t has been

-35-


36/48

est abl i shed t hat hi s r ol e i n t he over al l conspi r acy was mor e t han

j ust mi ni mal or mi nor . Based on t hi s evi dence, t he di st r i ct cour t

coul d r easonabl y i nf er t hat Cogswel l was awar e of t he capaci t y at

whi ch t he conspi r acy was operat i ng and, t hus, t hat t he dr ug amount

handl ed by t he conspi r acy was r easonabl y f oreseeabl e to hi m.

Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m t he di str i ct cour t ' s dr ug quant i t y

cal cul at i on, whi ch was not cl ear l y er r oneous.

C. Obstruction-of-Justice Enhancement

Sect i on 3C1. 1 of t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes mandat es a

t wo- l evel enhancement when t he def endant "wi l l f ul l y obst r uct ed

. . . or at t empt ed t o obst r uct . . . t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce

wi t h r espect t o t he . . . pr osecut i on, or sent enci ng of t he i nst ant

of f ense of convi ct i on, and ( 2) t he obst r uct i ve conduct r el at ed t o

( A) t he def endant ' s of f ense of convi ct i on and any r el evant conduct ;

or ( B) a cl osel y r el at ed of f ense. " U. S. S. G. 3C1. 1. One

r ecogni zed way i n whi ch a def endant can obst r uct j ust i ce i s by

"t hr eat eni ng, i nt i mi dat i ng, or ot her wi se unl awf ul l y i nf l uenci ng a

codef endant , wi t ness, or j ur or , di r ectl y or i ndi r ectl y, or

at t empt i ng t o do so. " See i d. at 3C1. 1 cmt . 4. The di st r i ct

cour t appl i ed a two- l evel enhancement af t er f i ndi ng t hat Cogswel l

had obst r uct ed j ust i ce by wr i t i ng a l et t er t o Hol mes, i n whi ch

Cogswel l t hr eat ened anot her gover nment wi t ness.

-36-


37/48

1. Background

Dur i ng t r i al , t he gover nment cal l ed Kei t h "Beau" Lewi s

( "Lewi s") , a l ocal dr ug deal er i n Bangor , t o t est i f y as a

gover nment wi t ness agai nst Cogswel l . The dr ug conspi r acy r an f or

some t i me f r om Lewi s' s house bef or e i t r el ocat ed t o 100B Ohi o

St r eet . Lewi s t est i f i ed as t o t he scope of Cogswel l ' s act i vi t i es

whi l e t he conspi r acy oper at ed f r om hi s house.

Af t er Cogswel l was convi ct ed, and whi l e t he pr esent ence

r eport was bei ng pr epared, Cogswel l wr ote a l et t er t o Hol mes, who

had al so t est i f i ed agai nst hi m at t r i al and who, at t hat t i me, was

i ncar cer at ed and awai t i ng sent enci ng. The l et t er st at ed as

f ol l ows, i n r el evant par t :

That "Di ck" Pr osecut or , . . . i s st i l lpr ot est i ng i t . He i s st i l l t r yi ng t o pr ot ect[ Lewi s] and "Ranger " . . . hi s " l i l " sni t chi e-bi t chi es and i s af r ai d t hat now t hat I knowwho they ar e, t hat [ wor ds bl acked- out ] . Oh

wel l , l i t t l e does he know when ever yt hi ng i sal l done and I have nothi ng to do wi t h anyonei n t he Bangor ar ea, al l set wi t h super vi sedr el ease, t hen I ' l l t ake car e of [ Lewi s] t he[ wor ds bl acked- out ] . . . My peopl e are gonnal ove hangi ng hi m up and set t i ng hi m on f i r e,he' s not even gonna get t he mercy of a bul l etwhen he scr eams f or i t . I ' l l wat ch and l aughand t hat wi l l be t hat .

Based on t hi s l et t er , and af t er car ef ul l y consi der i ng and

r ej ecti ng al l of Cogswel l ' s asser t i ons, t he di st r i ct cour t i mposed

an obst r uct i on- of - j ust i ce enhancement . Cogswel l appeal s t he

i mposi t i on of t hi s enhancement .

-37-


38/48

2. Analysis

A di st r i ct cour t ' s "f actual det er mi nat i on under l yi ng i t s

deci si on t o award a t wo- l evel enhancement f or obst r uct i on of

j ust i ce i s r evi ewed f or cl ear er r or . " Uni t ed St at es v. Cash, 266

F. 3d 42, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Car dal es, 168

F. 3d 548, 558 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) . " [ W] her e t he r ecor d suppor t s at

l east t wo per mi ssi bl e i nf er ences, t he f act f i nder ' s choi ce bet ween

t hem cannot be cl ear l y er r oneous. " Uni t ed St ates v. Bal sam, 203

F. 3d 72, 89 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . The quest i on of whet her t he scope of

sect i on 3C1. 1 encompasses a def endant ' s conduct , however , i s

subj ect t o de novo r evi ew. Uni t ed St ates v. Moreno, 947 F. 2d 7, 10

( 1st Ci r . 1991) .

Cogswel l al l eges t hat t he l et t er di d not const i t ut e an

obst r uct i on of j ust i ce because i t was wr i t t en af t er Lewi s had

al r eady t est i f i ed at t r i al and t he t r i al had concl uded. He al so

ar gues t hat t he l et t er was not an at t empt t o i nf l uence Lewi s

because i t was not di r ect ed at Lewi s, Lewi s never r ecei ved i t , and

Cogswel l had no reason t o bel i eve t hat Hol mes woul d r el ay t he

t hr eat t o Lewi s.

Cogswel l ' s f i r st cont ent i on l acks mer i t . I t i s

i r r el evant t hat , at t he t i me Cogswel l made t he t hr eat , t he t r i al

had al r eady concl uded, because sent enci ng was st i l l pendi ng and

obst r uct i on of j ust i ce ext ends t o sent enci ng under sect i on 3C1. 1.

U. S. S. G. 3C1. 1 ( "t he def endant wi l l f ul l y obst r uct ed . . . or

-38-


39/48

at t empt ed t o obst r uct . . . t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce wi t h

r espect t o . . . sent enci ng") . As t he di st r i ct cour t poi nt ed out ,

Lewi s was a cr uci al wi t ness r egar di ng dr ug quant i t y ( whi ch i s t he

pr i mar y consi der at i on i n det er mi ni ng t he gui del i ne of f ense l evel

f or a dr ug of f ense) , he was a potent i al gover nment wi t ness at

sent enci ng, and Cogswel l di d not know whet her Lewi s woul d be cal l ed

t o t est i f y at sent enci ng. See Uni t ed St at es v. McMi nn, 103 F. 3d

216, 218- 19 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( f i ndi ng enhancement appl i cabl e when

def endant t hreatened someone who "r emai ned a pr ospect i ve gover nment

wi t ness" i n f ur t her pr oceedi ngs agai nst def endant ) ; see al so Uni t ed

St ates v. Boyd, 574 F. App' x 878, 879- 80 ( 11t h Ci r . 2014)

( unpubl i shed) ( uphol di ng enhancement where def endant t hr eat ened a

wi t ness af t er def endant had pl eaded gui l t y and was awai t i ng

sent enci ng because def endant "di d not know whet her [ t he wi t ness' s]

t est i mony woul d be used agai nst hi m at sent enci ng" ) ; Uni t ed St at es

v. Rubi o, 317 F. 3d 1240, 1244- 45 ( 11t h Ci r . 2003) ( hol di ng t hat an

obst r uct i on- of - j ust i ce enhancement was appr opr i ate based on t he

def endant ' s assaul t on a wi t ness af t er t r i al , and r ej ect i ng t he

def endant ' s argument t hat because t he assaul t occur r ed af t er t r i al ,

i t coul d not i mpact t he pr osecut i on of hi s case) .

Cogswel l ' s ot her cont ent i on - - t hat t he enhancement i s

i nappl i cabl e because he di d not send t he t hr eat di r ect l y t o Lewi s,

but r at her i ncl uded i t i n a l et t er t o Hol mes - - suf f er s t he same

f at e. Cogswel l ci t es Uni t ed St at es v. Br ooks, 957 F. 2d 1138 ( 4t h

-39-


40/48

Ci r . 1992) , i n whi ch t he Four t h Ci r cui t r equi r ed t he t hr eat t o be

made di r ect l y t o the i nt ended t ar get or under ci r cumst ances i n

whi ch t her e i s some l i kel i hood t hat t he i nt ended t ar get wi l l l ear n

of t he t hr eat . Fol l owi ng t hi s l i ne of r easoni ng, Cogswel l ar gues

t hat appl i cat i on of t he obst r uct i on enhancement r equi r es proof t hat

Lewi s act ual l y l ear ned of t he t hr eat agai nst hi m, or at a mi ni mum,

t hat Cogswel l i nt ended t hat Lewi s woul d l ear n of t he t hr eat .

However , t he Four t h Ci r cui t ' s deci si on i n Br ooks has been

char act er i zed as an out l i er and no ot her ci r cui t t hat has addr essed

t he i ssue has f ol l owed t hat pat h. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Sear cy, 316 F. 3d 550, 552- 53 ( 5t h Ci r . 2002) ( char act er i zi ng Br ooks

as an "out l i er ") .

The Second, Fi f t h, Si xt h, Ei ght h, Ni nt h, Tenth, and

El event h Ci r cui t s have al l r ul ed t hat i ndi r ect t hr eat s made t o

t hi r d par t i es may const i t ut e obst r uct i on under 3C1. 1 absent a

showi ng t hat t hey were communi cat ed t o t he t arget . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Fl emi ng, 667 F. 3d 1098, 1109 ( 10t h Ci r . 2011) ( hol di ng

t hat t o qual i f y as an at t empt t o obst r uct j ust i ce a "def endant need

not act ual l y thr eat en t he wi t ness; he need onl y at t empt t o

i nf l uence [ hi m] ") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tal l ey, 443 F. App' x 968, 972

( 6t h Ci r . 2011) ( unpubl i shed) ( hol di ng t hat " st at ement s, even when

made t o a t hi r d par t y, whi ch ar e appr opr i at el y det er mi ned t o be

t hr eat eni ng" can const i t ut e obst r uct i on of j ust i ce) ; Sear cy, 316

F. 3d at 553 ( "The Four t h Ci r cui t ' s concl usi on i n Br ooks

-40-


41/48

not wi t hst andi ng, t her e i s not hi ng i n t he t ext of t he gui del i ne or

comment ar y whi ch r est r i ct s appl i cat i on of 3C1. 1 onl y t o

si t uat i ons i n whi ch t he def endant di r ect l y t hr eat ens a wi t ness or

communi cat es t he t hr eat t o a t hi r d par t y wi t h t he l i kel i hood t hat

i t wi l l i n t ur n be communi cat ed t o t he wi t ness. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Br adf or d, 277 F. 3d 1311, 1314- 15 ( 11t h Ci r . 2002) ( expr essl y

r ej ect i ng t he hol di ng i n Br ooks and concl udi ng that communi cat i ng

a t hr eat di r ect l y t o a wi t ness i s not r equi r ed t o suppor t

appl i cat i on of t he obst r uct i on- of - j ust i ce enhancement ) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. J ackson, 974 F. 2d 104, 106 ( 9t h Ci r . 1992) ( "Wher e a

def endant ' s st atement s can be reasonabl y const r ued as a t hr eat ,

even i f t hey ar e not made di r ect l y t o the t hr eat ened per son, t he

def endant has obst r uct ed j ust i ce. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Capps, 952

F. 2d 1026, 1028 ( 8t h Ci r . 1991) ( hol di ng t hat because 3C1. 1

appl i es t o at t empt s t o obst r uct j ust i ce, i t i s not essent i al t hat

t he t hr eat be communi cated t o t he t arget ) ; Uni t ed St ates v.

Shoul ber g, 895 F. 2d 882, 884- 86 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) ( hol di ng t hat a not e

t o a t hi r d par t y, wher e the def endant never r equest ed t hat t he

message be conveyed t o t he i ntended target , was an at t empt t o keep

t he tar get f r om cooper at i ng wi t h t he gover nment and j ust i f i ed

appl i cat i on of 3C1. 1) .

Li ke t he Tent h Ci r cui t , we f i nd t hi s r easoni ng mor e

per suasi ve. Si nce 3C1. 1 cl ear l y appl i es t o at t empt s by

def endant s t o di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y t hr eat en, i nt i mi dat e, or

-41-


42/48

i nf l uence a pot ent i al wi t ness, see U. S. S. G. 3C1. 1 cmt . 4, we

concl ude t hat t he obst r uct i on enhancement may appl y wher e a

t hr eateni ng st at ement i s made t o a t hi r d part y and absent evi dence

t hat i t was communi cated to t he t arget .

Under t hi s st andard, Cogswel l ' s st at ement agai nst Lewi s

const i t ut es an at t empt ed obst r uct i on of j ust i ce. Whi l e hi s

sent enci ng hear i ng was pendi ng, Cogswel l sent a t est i f yi ng wi t ness

a l et t er t hat i ncl uded a t hr eat t o ki l l anot her t est i f yi ng wi t ness.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Cogswel l ' s t hreat agai nst Lewi s was

speci f i c, ser i ous, and mat er i al , and, i f bel i eved, woul d t end t o

i nf l uence or af f ect t he wi t ness. 9 The di str i ct cour t al so

expl ai ned t hat Cogswel l ' s r ef er ence t o "my peopl e" r ai ses the

spect er t hat Cogswel l has "compat r i ot s out t her e who ar e aware of

Mr . Lewi s' r ol e and wi l l seek t o do hi m har m. " Even t hough

Cogswel l di d not di r ect hi s t hr eat t o Lewi s, t her e was a reasonabl e

possi bi l i t y Hol mes woul d communi cat e i t t o hi m. Af t er al l , t hi s i s

not a si t uat i on wher e Hol mes owed any obl i gat i on of conf i dent i al i t y

t o Cogswel l . Hol mes was a government wi t ness who mi ght wel l have

been mot i vat ed t o shar e t he t hr eat wi t h her f el l ow wi t ness.

Readi ng t he gr aphi c and mal evol ent pl an, especi al l y bol st er ed wi t h

an omi nous r ef er ence t o hi s ' peopl e, ' coul d ver y wel l cause Hol mes

t o shar e t he t hr eat wi t h Lewi s or even di ssuade her f r omt est i f yi ng

9 The di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat , si nce Lewi s i s Af r i can- Amer i can,t he t hr eat t o "l ynch and bur n" Lewi s i s speci al l y "chi l l i ng i nl i ght of t hi s count r y' s t r agi c r aci al hi stor y. "

-42-


43/48

dur i ng Cogswel l ' s sent enci ng pr oceedi ngs, or make her r ecant her

t est i mony agai nst Cogswel l . Thus, t he obst r uct i on of j ust i ce

enhancement i s af f i r med.

D. Firearm Enhancement

The Sent enci ng Gui del i nes appl y a t wo- l evel enhancement

t o t he base of f ense i f t he def endant possessed a f i r ear m i n

connect i on wi t h t he convi ct ed of f ense. U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1( b) ( 1) . A

f i r ear m enhancement i s appr opr i at e "whenever a codef endant ' s

possessi on of a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of j oi nt cri mi nal acti vi t y

was reasonabl y f or eseeabl e t o t he def endant . " Uni t ed St at es v.

Mena- Robl es, 4 F. 3d 1026, 1036 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Bi anco, 922 F. 2d 910, 912 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Gr ei g, 717 F. 3d 212, 219 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "To

war r ant t he enhancement , t he def endant does not need t o have

possessed t he weapon hersel f or even t o have known about i t , i t

j ust must be r easonabl y f or eseeabl e t hat a coconspi r at or woul d

possess a weapon i n f ur t her ance of t he cr i mi nal act i vi t y. " ( ci t i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Fl or esDe J ess, 569 F. 3d 8, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) .

Thi s enhancement appl i es unl ess i t i s cl ear l y i mpr obabl e t hat t he

weapon was connect ed t o t he commi ssi on of t he of f ense. Uni t ed

St at es v. Ander son, 452 F. 3d 87, 91 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Fact ual

f i ndi ngs of a f i r ear m enhancement ar e r evi ewed f or cl ear er r or .

I d. at 90.

-43-


44/48

Rel yi ng on t est i mony f r omJ owenky Nez ( "Nez") , one of

hi s coconspi r at or s, Cogswel l al l eges t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

i mpr oper l y appl i ed a f i r ear m enhancement i n cal cul at i ng t he

appl i cabl e GSR. At t r i al , Nez t est i f i ed t hat i n December 2010,

Cogswel l was at Lewi s' s house because he br ought a gun t o t he

l eader s of t he conspi r acy i n exchange f or t en bags of cr ack

cocai ne. When asked i f t hat was t he onl y t i me t hat Cogswel l was

pr esent at Lewi s' s house, Nez r epl i ed, "No, because [he] was

wor ki ng wi t h us l at er . " Based on t hi s t est i mony, Cogswel l al l eges

t hat t he evi dence shows t hat he t r aded a gun f or dr ugs bef ore he

j oi ned t he conspi r acy and t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t o t he

cont r ar y ( t hat i t was i n f ur t her ance of ) i s er r oneous. We

di sagr ee.

The evi dence shows t hat Cogswel l t r aded t he gun f or cr ack

cocai ne i n December 2010. At l east t hr ee ot her wi t nesses t est i f i ed

t hat Cogswel l was par t of t he conspi r acy as ear l y as August or

Sept ember 2010. The di st r i ct cour t cr edi t ed t hese wi t nesses, over

Nez, r egardi ng when he j oi ned t he conspi r acy. 10 As Nez

t est i f i ed, Cogswel l gave t he gun t o hi s coconspi r at or s dur i ng a

drug deal . Thi s gun became t he "house gun" and was al ways at t he

100B Ohi o St r eet apart ment , wher e i t was f r equent l y car r i ed and

10 Fur t hermore, Nez' s test i mony does not necessar i l y mean t hatCogswel l onl y j oi ned t he conspi r acy af t er he t r aded t he gun f ordr ugs. Rather , hi s t est i mony may be i nt er pr et ed as meani ng t hatCogswel l cont i nued to be at Lewi s' s house af t er t he t r ade becausehe cont i nued t o par t i ci pat e i n t he conspi r acy.

-44-


45/48

hel d by coconspi r at or s. Al l t hi s i ndi cat es t hat t he gun pl ayed a

r ol e i n t he dr ug conspi r acy whi ch oper ated out of t he apart ment ,

and t hus possessi on of t he gun i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy' s

obj ect i ves was f oreseeabl e t o Cogswel l . See Bi anco, 922 F. 2d at

912 ( st at i ng t hat f i r earms are "common t ool s of t he dr ug t r ade" and

i t may be i nf er r ed t hat a codef endant ' s possessi on of a f i r ear m i n

f ur t her ance of t hei r j oi nt cr i mi nal vent ur e i s f or eseeabl e t o a

def endant wi t h r eason t o bel i eve t hat hi s act s are par t of t he dr ug

trade).

Based on t hi s evi dence, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on

t hat Cogswel l was al r eady a member of t he conspi r acy when he t r aded

t he gun i n December 2010 and t hat t he f i r ear m enhancement was

appl i cabl e ar e not cl ear l y er r oneous. Thus, t he enhancement i s

af f i r med.

E. Reasonableness of Cogswell's Sentence

As di scussed above, " [ we] consi der t he subst ant i ve

r easonabl eness of t he sent ence i mposed under an abuse- of - di scr et i on

st andar d. " Gal l , 552 U. S. at 51. When conduct i ng t hi s r evi ew, we

t ake i nt o account " t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances. " I d.

Gener al l y, no abuse of di scr et i on i s f ound "as l ong as t he cour t

has pr ovi ded a pl ausi bl e expl anat i on, and t he over al l r esul t i s

def ensi bl e. " Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d at 96.

Cogswel l argues t hat hi s sent ence, whi ch was al most seven

year s bel ow t he advi sory GSR, i s subst ant i vel y unr easonabl e i n

-45-


46/48

l i ght of t he f act t hat he was sent enced t o a t er m l onger t han many

of hi s mor e i nvol ved coconspi r at or s, i ncl udi ng t he l eader of t he

conspi r acy. Hi s cl ai m l acks mer i t .

At Cogswel l ' s sent enci ng hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t made

cl ear i t s consi der at i on of ever y f act or l i st ed i n 18 U. S. C.

3553( a) and made expl i ci t not e of i t s f ocus on Cogswel l ' s hi st or y

and char act er i st i cs, t he nat ur e and ci r cumst ances of t he of f ense,

and t he need t o avoi d any unwarr ant ed sent enci ng di spar i t i es among

si mi l ar l y si t uat ed def endant s. Regar di ng t hi s l ast f act or , t he

di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat t he di spar i t i es among t he sent ences t hat

t he cour t had i mposed on t he codef endant s wer e at t r i but abl e t o a

number of f act or s, i ncl udi ng t hat each def endant had di f f er ent

cri mi nal hi st or i es and di f f er ent r ol es wi t hi n t he conspi r acy, al l

ot her def endant s ha

Documents

United States v. Trinidad-Acosta, 1st Cir. (2014)